Saturday, October 6, 2012

You don't know how to argue

Source material

Of course it doesn't. If you don't accept the premise that all pleasure is the result of deprivation being nullified,

Citations to the contrary are necessary after affirmations like these; without them, you demonstrate absolutely nothing. Please provide an example of a pleasure which, as a fulfillment of a generalized desire, would not cause incredible suffering if not obtained after a sufficient period of time. There are a multitude of ways to fulfill various desires, but in the absence of any object of fulfillment, all prolonged desire leads to substantive suffering.

and/or you don't accept the further premise that "deprivation" is some dreadful thing that devalues everything good in life,

All deprivation has the physical potential for horrible suffering; if you are deprived of a piece of bubblegum, it isn't really the end of the world, but in the general sense, the desire to experience a simple pleasure going unfulfilled hundreds of times could lead to all kinds of bad: feelings of social isolation, feelings of ineptitude for failing to obtain any simple pleasures, or even starvation if what we're talking about is food.

Even if just one form of desire were to have this physical potential built into it, that would still be sufficient to warrant the antinatalist position. When you have a child, you are admitting that you want another sentient organism to experience fairly bad things at least a few times during its lifetime, and then die.

What if your child becomes suicidal later in life? Will you see the child as unappreciative of your thoughtful gift? Do you regularly force gifts upon people without any clue beforehand whether they will enjoy the gifts? It takes no energy and causes no suffering for you to not create a child, so without foreknowledge that the child will appreciate his life, why would you create it? These are not dice to be rolled so frivolously.

Further, even if your child grows up to love his life -- and you, of course, for creating him -- would that somehow justify your act? Suppose you have a son who comes out partially blind or missing an arm, then winds up experiencing the bad things pretty typical for our society: being picked on in school, having problems with debt, getting one too many really nasty stomach bugs. He still looks on the bright side and is glad to exist, but all of those nasty stomach bugs and all of that bullying wasn't necessary. Who are you to decide that he should face those things?

1. I have a child. I have no idea beforehand whether it's going to come out deformed, get cancer later in life, have relationship problems, suffer from depression, become a drug addict, or get into a serious car accident. In spite of all of these risks, the child may still wind up being glad to have been granted the gift of life. However, I'm pretty certain that the child will eventually die, and will suffer at least a few times during its lifetime. The child's overall assessment of its life aside, should I impose these risks onto it, having no idea beforehand how bad it's really going to be for it? Does it matter whether the child ultimately decides for itself that the bad was worth it?

2. I don't have a child. It costs me nothing to do this, and nothing horrible takes place as a result; the risk is extinguished.

Your son could have the most amazing life possible, or he could have the most horrific life possible, packaged with depression, suicidal thoughts, handicaps, or chronic pain. Is it worth risking creating something that will not only suffer immensely, but abhor its life as well? Why is it so important to take that risk? Why are you so bent on taking it? What greater bad will result if you don't take it? The stakes are incredibly high, here -- death, disease, depression, horrible pain, emotional torment -- so introducing the possibility for any of this certainly requires something far worse as a consequent of the alternative, i.e. not reproducing.

The risk involved in not having children must be greater than the risk involved in having children in order for your procreation to be justified.



Much of the rest appears to just be taking scientific theories or familiar philosophical positions and saying "Isn't this horrific/disgusting/depressing?" - to which the honest answer is generally "No."

This does not apply to all antinatalists, and is utterly irrelevant to the core position. You're attacking a methodology, here -- not the outcome of the methodology. I can use the worst logic imaginable to come to the conclusion that racism is a detriment to society, but that doesn't mean that racism is a wonderful thing.

The more obnoxious ones tend to do things like compare reproduction to genocide (and consequently condemn any and all parents with according severity) or generalize everyone who doesn't feel the same as them as being mindless sheep. This is the point where, for me, they go from "holds a weird philosophical position" to "is a seriously horrible person". But I find that more obnoxious than amusing; after a while it just gets repetitive.

Again, all irrelevant to the definition of "antinatalism." You don't need to equate reproduction with genocide in order to view reproduction as laden with far too much risk to warrant condoning.

Are these blogs and videos actually harmful?
To someone that's already depressed and looking for things that reinforce their world view? Yes, definitely. This can be as bad as joining a gang or a cult, psychologically.

How harmful a philosophy turns out to be to an individual who has been raised to possess relatively poor life management skills is irrelevant to the veracity of the philosophy. You do realize that this same logic is used by antagonists to your precious video games, right? "Violent video games are corrupting our children! Shooting imaginary people increases the likelihood of desiring to shoot real people!"

Is it only true that an idea or piece of media cannot be held responsible for a bad tangential outcome when this concept conveniently applies to your stance? How do you live with yourself and all of the cognitive dissonance bottled up inside of you after accusing people of promoting mass death and cult-like sheepishness, then turning around and calling that same type of accusation disgusting and biased when it's someone else doing it to you?

CulturalPhilistine kind of freaked me out, not because I found anything he said at all convincing, but because he just seemed such a horrifyingly awful and depressing person.

Isaac Newton was a celibate weirdo and probably a big creep, but he was still right. Beethoven sounds like he was a huge asshole, but I still like his music.

Become enlightened.

At least these creeps aren't breeding.

This being more irrelevant ad hominem rhetoric aside, I would hope that in this year, more young people would be educated enough to know how genetic expression affects cognitive dispositions like philosophical outlooks. You might be referring to poor parenting, but I just wanted to point this out.

Furthermore, among the philosophers they admire, Schopenhauer was an anti-semite who became Hitler's favorite philosopher, Emil Cioran supported the Nazi party in his youth, and Lovecraft(shut up, I know he was a writer for the most part) is famous for his racism.

Schopenhauer was right about few things, and used faulty logic to arrive at those few correct conclusions.

Do you like some of the same video games and movies as the Batman shooter?

More enlightenment. God, it reads like one of my posts, doesn't it? Silly robotic me for getting all logical on you guys!

Do they know you don't NEED to agree with everything a philosopher believes to use his philosophy?

I know that. And if you really did, too, then you wouldn't be asserting that an antinatalist NEEDS to be a racist on the sole grounds that another antinatalist philosopher was also a racist.

I reread the posts by Aidan and have to say, that guy seriously needs a girlfriend. What a melodramatic little bitch.

Editorial refuted! Peer review at its finest right here, folks. Next time that I disagree with someone during a scientific debate of some sort, I'll remember to call him a little bitch so that I can automatically win the debate and get a cool prize.

People should probably seek help for their mental health issues from a psychiatrist or therapist and not these web-sites?

They should do the same when contemplating retreating into virtual worlds, don't you think? Does that make online roleplaying games bad for your health, physical or mental?

I mean, really, the fact that gang rape exists means no one should be born? Does he know that we have police to stop people from doing bad things, and that if the world was that horrible, no one would have bothered to consider making a police force?

How horrible the world is really doesn't affect the antinatalist conclusion; we could be living in the most idyllic society imaginable and it would still make sense. The point is that, if there exists the potential to create totally avoidable, horrible suffering, and the alternative involves less risk, then the alternative should be opted for.

Plus, from what I can gather, Inmendham started as out as a fanboy of the Amazing Atheist, which tells you something.

I "started out" as a Christian when I was a small child. So? You realize that this is about objective axioms of value and not which social club is right the most when it comes to said axioms, right? You realize that, if there were no humans in the universe, this would all still apply, right?

And that's what bugs me, I guess; pleasure is an emotion that doesn't need qualifiers and should not be ultimately subject to Cultural Cringe. Because, really, that's what this is about: seeing people suffer in the third world makes it seem like they're not worthy to enjoy what they've got, and they they should either end their lives or live as an ascetic.

Well, really, that's not what this is about at all.

Even more enlightenment

If at all possible, I'd like to avoid people taking it upon themselves to end their lives; suicide is messy, depressing, and often quite painful. It causes loved ones to suffer in many cases. But most importantly, if there is no discrete, permanent construction of self, then what really matters isn't your illusory sense of personhood, but how each constituent of your consciousness suffers; these constituents have equivalents all across the animal kingdom, so to end your life would be akin to ignoring "your" suffering as it occurs elsewhere, in places where the laws of physics prevent "you" from remembering it happening.

As for asceticism, that's obviously a bad idea: Why intentionally deprive yourself if deprivation is negative?

Which is where I start getting annoyed with them. First, it seems like they're looking a gift horse in the mouth. You have a good life in a relatively rich country with not much in the way of logistical problems or political strife, you're personally not struggling to survive like the people you pity so much are.

Hold your tongue. Who are you to tell someone whom you've never met that their suffering is trivial? You do not speak for all of us, and even if you were to somehow possess that god-like ability, it would still be irrelevant to the assertion that those third world sufferers shouldn't exist in the first place. If you're okay with putting a dog down after seeing it crap blood while whimpering, why aren't you okay with preventing starving people from coming into existence in the first place? Keep in mind that people in the third world are so bad off that they don't have time to contemplate the philosophical gravity of their existences or fates.

Meanwhile, a substantial portion of our population is on antidepressants, alienation is on the rise in large cities, and anxiety disorders are hitting record numbers; and let's not forget about overpopulation, body-mangling car accidents, school shooters, reported declines in empathy, or the elderly undergoing awful chemotherapy, just to name a few more "developed world" problems.

I find your tone incredibly condescending. You are not morally superior to anyone, for no one can be morally superior to anyone else, given that morals are dogmatic in nature. The world would be much better off without people of your disposition proclaiming to know everything about total strangers and what to do to make it all better.

Second, the fact that you're not struggling to survive puts you in a position to actually help the ople you see as suffering so much. As I've noted before, there are plenty of ways to help the poor and the less well-off, and contributing to them would be a good thing, as it would convert pity (which is kind of a passive-aggressive thing) into actual caring.

You can do all of this while also being an antinatalist; one is proactive, while the other is reactive.

Unfortunately, it also seems like blame-shifting is a big component of this. It makes sense, as it's a common feature of depression. These are people who don't want to really face their own demons and would rather blame society itself for their own ills. And that I can't support, either.

You have to see how stupid this is. I think you're being dishonest with yourself when you make statements like this and pretend that it's somehow philosophical in nature. You're only saying this because it sounds good -- not because there is any substance to it.

You can literally say this about any negative philosophical stance. Atheists don't want to face their sins, so they'd rather blame society for advocating the "god" model of the universe. Vegetarians don't want to face all the weight they gain when they eat meat, so they'd rather blame society for eating meat. Feminists don't want to face their own lack of domestic skills, so they'd rather blame society for forcing them into the domestic role.

Get real.

I hope that you realize that, in order for your assertion to be true, literally all antinatalists have to suffer from depression. If even a single one does not suffer from depression, then your assertion is false, and thus another exponent of our hideous preoccupation with generalizations.

this is the fable of the antinatalist and the antinatalist.

The first antinatalist was a shark antinatalist. He argues that sharks are by their very existence a blight upon the world, and that all sharks deceive themselves into happiness by feasting upon fish and squid. The second antinatalist is a human, and he argues much the same about us, and does so on the internet (sharks do not have internet, they have intercoral)

Tragically, while the two were conversing, an Old God arose from the sea and proved them both wrong in a hilarious manner.

The End.

Cute, but still quite wrong. First, a large number of humans are certainly happy, and are not deceiving themselves. The problem is not that happiness is a lie or an illusion; it's that it is built out of a faulty premise which necessarily allows for tremendous risk -- most noticeable in the forms of organisms forced into existence who subsequently decide that their lives are unwanted and negative. If just one organism in the past billion years has decided this, then the very risk-free alternative of no-life is the option with less risk; incorporate some of our culture's obsession with consent into this (not that I ever would), and the point becomes even more salient.

Second, we cannot frame life in human terms; animals can neither accept nor reject life as a concept, for animals do not possess the capability to abstract reality into symbols to be used later for constructing models and analogs. To your dog, there is no "life" versus "non-life," because his brain is incapable of boxing off the concept of life and separating it from the other possibilities. To your dog, there is only moving from one moment to the next, desirous until death, negative experiences unavoidable and blindly accepted.

Your dog cannot love life if it doesn't know to create the concept in its brain called "life." Your dog can love you, a piece of meat, a female dog, or a walk, but it cannot love life.

I agree that science alone can't determine a system of ethics,

Then what else is necessary? We can say this of so many things: Science alone cannot explain consciousness; science alone cannot dictate our economy. If something is declared unethical, can it not be empirically observed to be so? If it truly cannot, then why are you subscribing to the notion that it's unethical?

I'll stop there for now. I might tackle the other two pages later.

I don't understand this passive-aggressive, gossipy kind of cowardice. Are you so afraid of the argument that you have to throw rocks at it from a distance before running away into the bushes and laughing with your friends about how cool and brave you were for throwing the rocks?

All of the above is why we need logic courses in elementary school as soon as possible!!!

47 comments:

  1. No, no, no, you do this to Something Awful if you want hordes of angry internet people to invade your blog, this'll just get you a "lol" and maybe one or two comments at most.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean, dude, believe me, I've tried to get people to come here and argue with you to make you feel good, but nobody feels like hitting their head against the brick wall that is you.

      Delete
    2. I posted this over on HH, but I can't promise anything dudebro.

      Delete
    3. Why will it get an "lol"? Is this a funny subject?

      Delete
    4. "ARE YOU INTERESTED IN LEAVING SOCIETY COMPLETELY, DRASTICALLY REFORMING THE FUNDAMENTS OF SOCIETY, OR AT LEAST DISCUSSING WHAT TO DO ABOUT LIFE AS A PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED?"

      No, I'm interested in _changing_ society so that the right to die gets legalized. Then, I can kill myself peacfully (too afraid of N2, I want barbiturates) and be done with it. Life sucks, there is no need to create a need. I want answers! I want meaning!

      Delete
  2. Also half of this is complaining about a safety razor being an inefficient tool for either suicide or murder.

    Metaphorically speaking.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Going from your blog post title, you seem to think that you're an authority on what a proper argument is. Also going from what you've written above and the rest of your blog, it's apparent that one of your favored tactics in this regard is playing your precious "logic" trump card. There's a problem with this however, because it's pretty much obvious that your entire knowledge of logic is what you've gleaned from watching Data and Mr. Spock on TV. If you had any formal guidance as to what logic is and how it is employed, you'd know that it's an analysis of the value or soundness of an argument -- and the set method of how this analysis is performed -- and _not_ a convenient device to simply silence opponents. And because of your ignorance on the subject, it's quite safe to conclude that you don't even know what a sound or valid argument _is_.

    For example, in your novel-length testament to mental diarrhea above, you toss around "what ifs" and conjecture and other speculative nonsense (which are also fallacies on your part, which we'll get to in a moment) and actually think that this laughable tripe is actually some sort of "logical" counterargument, and you even go on to gloat about it! "God, it reads like one of my posts, doesn't it? Silly robotic me for getting all logical on you guys!" Again, you might just want to gain an elementary comprehension of logic before you indulge in the hubris there, champ.

    Moving forward, let's consider what you've accomplished here. From a casual discussion on a forum, you've carefully cherry picked points (sharpshooter fallacy) that you could could prop up to argue against (strawman fallacy) on a playing field you set up specifically so only you can win (in your own little mind, that is.) Then, you silence these isolated strawmen whenever possible by accusing _them_ of employing logical fallacies. Amazingly, this is after you throwing around the accusation of -- wait for it -- rhetoric and cognitive dissonance. Your tolerance to your own hypocrisy is superhuman to say the least.

    This riposte of yours took you only six months. And all over a simple, casual, philosophical discussion. Bravo.

    Perhaps this is due to it being damn near a novel-length tirade. Despite you must think, verbosity does not convey a sense of scholarship or authority. It's a transparent performance that at the very least betrays the incompetence of the author. The smart and the wise get straight to the point of the matter, not dance around it with the rhetoric that you are so fond of (and hypocritically accuse others of.) And because I have a pretty good idea of how you're going to reply to this -- if you do, that is -- they also do not flee behind the smoke and mirrors of semantics and grandiloquence. Which given the way you go about your tirades, would leave you completely incapable of replying.

    I'm sure you'll find a way, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You forgot to point to the relevant arguments that the sharpshooter skipped over, and to respond to the content of his own arguments.

      Delete
    2. I'm not here to get embroiled into the argument, which (I think) basically is Leaving Society not wanting to contaminate the gene pool. Really, how can any responsible person argue with that?

      What I have pointed out his ignorant interpretation of what logic is, his equally ignorant interpretation of what an argument is; and how he thinks that namedropping a fallacy or bellowing "logic!" are instant-win, one-size-fits-all maneuvers in a childish game of intellectual checkmate where the only one actually playing is himself. If he didn't think this way, he would not employ the smoke and mirrors of rhetoric and verbosity among other things. Once he's succeeded there, he crows victory after people simply walk away (six months before if this current discussion is any indication) because they know they're arguing with a figurative five-year-old.

      Delete
    3. Ah okay, I thought you were serious.

      Delete
    4. "Going from your blog post title, you seem to think that you're an authority on what a proper argument is."

      So if I'm an eight-year-old kid who laughs at people for swerving all over the road, that automatically connotes that I consider myself an excellent driver? There is a middle statement needed in order for the first and second to be linked, and you have not provided it.

      The very concept of authority is fallacious, for it implies that an individual is a permanent construct.

      "Also going from what you've written above and the rest of your blog, it's apparent that one of your favored tactics in this regard is playing your precious 'logic' trump card."

      Damn that logic! Always getting in the way of everyone's attempts to argue with me -- just like yours! Wait, where is your attempt to argue with me?

      "There's a problem with this however, because it's pretty much obvious that your entire knowledge of logic is what you've gleaned from watching Data and Mr. Spock on TV."

      Please refute, line by line, my above use of each of the Wikipedia articles by providing contra indications as regards their correlation to the relevant statements. Why is it not guilt by association to declare a subscriber to the philosophy of Schopenhauer a Nazi sympathist? Where do the arguments supporting the notion that it really is guilt by association break down on their way from the premise to the conclusion? In what manner do they break down?

      If you cannot do this, then might I ask: Are you equating Wikipedia with Mr. Spock and other stupid caricatures of human reason's ultimate destination?

      "If you had any formal guidance as to what logic is and how it is employed,"

      If I don't, then please demonstrate how I don't; otherwise, I will be forced to label your words as defamation. Besides, your use of the word "formal" in this context implies that logic must be derived from preapproved institutions, and that, further, logic cannot be gleaned intuitively by empirically observing one's surroundings in the general sense.

      What came first? The chicken or the egg? In this case, the answer should be rather obvious.

      "you'd know that it's an analysis of the value or soundness of an argument -- and the set method of how this analysis is performed -- and _not_ a convenient device to simply silence opponents."

      If I wanted to silence my opponents, then I'd just ban them from my blog; it's much more efficient to do that if silencing is your goal. I'm not forcing anyone to fail to provide actual counterarguments, and your own willful failure to do so is indicative of a greater preoccupation with personal drama and retribution. Unfortunately for you, the efficacy of retributive acts is suspect.

      How am I the bad guy for your failure to rise up and crush all of my petty uses of the word "logic"?

      "For example, in your novel-length testament to mental diarrhea above,"

      This clause is implying that lengthy posts are flawed in one way or another by default. Given that you likely do not believe this of all lengthy posts, my tentative conclusion is that you are again failing to acknowledge some form of cognitive dissonance resident within your mind.

      Unless all novel-length posts are fallacious or otherwise flawed, your injection of this term into the clause is completely superfluous, and counterproductive to the goal of making Earth a better place to live.

      Delete
    5. "you toss around 'what ifs' and conjecture and other speculative nonsense"

      This statement is implying that "what ifs" are flawed in one way or another by default. Given that you likely do not believe this of all "what ifs", my tentative conclusion is that you are again failing to acknowledge some form of cognitive dissonance resident within your mind.

      "(which are also fallacies on your part, which we'll get to in a moment)"

      Did I miss something? Where did you get to demonstrating the fallaciousness of conjecture? Further, why must you spin thought experiments and abstraction into this putrid web of pejoratives in the first place?

      "and actually think that this laughable tripe is actually some sort of 'logical' counterargument, and you even go on to gloat about it! 'God, it reads like one of my posts, doesn't it? Silly robotic me for getting all logical on you guys!' Again, you might just want to gain an elementary comprehension of logic before you indulge in the hubris there, champ."

      What laughable tripe? Where? Cite it and refute it, please.

      I have no new information regarding the topic at hand from you, so until you provide some or in some other way indicate that you want to contribute, I am left to suspect that you're only here to voice your dissent and not to persuade. I find this fascinating, considering that there are almost seven billion people on Earth, and that a fairly large quantity of them probably have some trait or another which you find in bad taste -- yet, in spite of this, you expend your energy explaining why I am a bad person. I am a bigger deal to you than most people, I take it.

      "Moving forward, let's consider what you've accomplished here. From a casual discussion on a forum, you've carefully cherry picked points (sharpshooter fallacy)"

      Cherry-picking requires a clear point beyond which further segmentation and isolation of concepts is basically impossible; consequently, the whole of the communicated information set must be addressed at once. In the case of the posts that I picked, the contiguous strings could be further segmented; each singular statementthat was chosen, though, was isolated and definite. That's not cherry-picking; that's CliffsNotes.

      "Amazingly, this is after you throwing around the accusation of -- wait for it -- rhetoric and cognitive dissonance. Your tolerance to your own hypocrisy is superhuman to say the least."

      Show me.

      "This riposte of yours took you only six months. And all over a simple, casual, philosophical discussion. Bravo."

      Not that it matters, but I replied the same day that I found out about it. Am I too late? Is this topic not trendy anymore? Sorry.

      "Despite you must think, verbosity does not convey a sense of scholarship or authority."

      I can loquaciously propagate extraneous verbosity with such preeminent facility as to relegate all ignominious detractors to being antithetical to even one modicum of pulchritude. Thoreau, Poe, Voltaire -- all proudly emphatic patrons of my supreme intellect and astonishingly fecund prose!

      Nah. Actually, I use a lot of short, facetious rhetorical sentences as part of my idiom. Why? Because part of transparent communication is defining the common ground, and then operating about it.

      Delete
    6. "It's a transparent performance that at the very least betrays the incompetence of the author. The smart and the wise get straight to the point of the matter, not dance around it with the rhetoric that you are so fond of (and hypocritically accuse others of.)"

      Yeah, I really need to cut down on providing links containing further information which precisely addresses a few fallacious sentences in an informative and "formal" way. How beat-around-the-bushy of me.

      God forbid I ever wrote a two hundred-page book and you picked it up.

      "And because I have a pretty good idea of how you're going to reply to this -- if you do, that is -- they also do not flee behind the smoke and mirrors of semantics and grandiloquence. Which given the way you go about your tirades, would leave you completely incapable of replying.

      I'm sure you'll find a way, though."


      It is fallacious to associate antinatalists with Nazis solely because of an antiquated affiliation between Schopenhauerians -- who are not synonymous with antinatalists -- and Nazis.

      Please explain why the above is false, rife with rhetoric, and excessively verbose.

      Small, specific desires are merely facets of large, general desires which, if gone unfulfilled for a sufficient period of time, always lead to substantive suffering.

      Please explain why the above is false, rife with rhetoric, and excessively verbose.

      Reproduction being unnecessarily risky, given the nature of life, has nothing to do with what relative amount of suffering is currently predominant on the planet.

      Please explain why the above is false, rife with rhetoric, and excessively verbose.

      Neither the personality of a purveyor of factual information nor the method used to present factual information are capable of changing the veracity of the factual information.

      Please explain why the above is false, rife with rhetoric, and excessively verbose.

      Thank you. May your day be wonderful!

      Delete
    7. "I'm not here to get embroiled into the argument, which (I think) basically is Leaving Society not wanting to contaminate the gene pool. Really, how can any responsible person argue with that?

      What I have pointed out his ignorant interpretation of what logic is, his equally ignorant interpretation of what an argument is; and how he thinks that namedropping a fallacy or bellowing 'logic!' are instant-win, one-size-fits-all maneuvers in a childish game of intellectual checkmate where the only one actually playing is himself. If he didn't think this way, he would not employ the smoke and mirrors of rhetoric and verbosity among other things. Once he's succeeded there, he crows victory after people simply walk away (six months before if this current discussion is any indication) because they know they're arguing with a figurative five-year-old."


      I crow victory? Show me where. As far as I'm aware, I always preface any declarations of correctness with:

      1. A dissociation between the data/information and the personality of the communicator

      2. An acknowledgment of the ever-present possibility that my dynamically updating positions will continue to update unhindered into perpetuity

      3. Skepticism regarding the nature of empirical observation itself

      Anyway, it really is fascinating that everyone allegedly walks away after they realize that they're beating their heads against a brick wall, yet here you are, ready to compose as many paragraphs as it takes to make me feel sorry for my sins, but nevertheless completely disinterested in persuasion! If it's futile to refute my arguments, is it not just as futile to attempt to get me to repent for my superiority complex? What is your motive?

      Delete
    8. Well, let's see here. I predicted you'd reply behind the smokescreen of verbiage and rhetoric, and you certainly don't disappoint. Before I even respond, we need to clear some of this shit out of the way first:

      "Why is it not guilt by association to declare a subscriber to the philosophy of Schopenhauer a Nazi sympathist? "

      strawman

      " Where do the arguments supporting the notion that it really is guilt by association break down on their way from the premise to the conclusion?"

      strawman

      " Are you equating Wikipedia with Mr. Spock and other stupid caricatures of human reason's ultimate destination?"

      strawman that cites Wikipedia for fuck's sakes

      "What came first? The chicken or the egg? In this case, the answer should be rather obvious."

      strawman

      "I'm not forcing anyone to fail to provide actual counterarguments, and your own willful failure to do so is indicative of a greater preoccupation with personal drama and retribution. "

      tu quoqe fallacy

      "Unless all novel-length posts are fallacious or otherwise flawed, your injection of this term into the clause is completely superfluous,"

      silly conjecture, composition/division fallacy

      "Further, why must you spin thought experiments and abstraction into this putrid web of pejoratives in the first place?"

      Cribbed supervillain dialog from a bad fanfiction fallacy

      "It is fallacious to associate antinatalists with Nazis solely because of an antiquated affiliation between Schopenhauerians -- who are not synonymous with antinatalists -- and Nazis."

      mother of all strawmen, Godwin invoked, ding ding ding we have a winner folks

      ....and this was me giving that mess of words a cursory glance. Not only are you a complete hypocrite, you're just not very good at this or anything else, are you?

      Let's continue.

      "The very concept of authority is fallacious, for it implies that an individual is a permanent construct."

      That's cute, but you're not the first psuedointellectual to cry out that you refuse everyone else's reality and substitute your own. There's thousands and thousands of you across the entire world manning the fry vats at McDonalds, cursing your shift manager under your breath and how one day you'll show them. You'll show them all.

      Delete
    9. It's clear throughout all your rambling in your post and replies that you think you're too damn smart for the establishment, and that you have the whole world figured out on your own. For instance, you continue with:

      "If I don't, then please demonstrate how I don't; otherwise, I will be forced to label your words as defamation. Besides, your use of the word "formal" in this context implies that logic must be derived from preapproved institutions, and that, further, logic cannot be gleaned intuitively by empirically observing one's surroundings in the general sense."

      Yes, I am going by the established and formalized definition of logic -- which has arrived at its current state due to the accomplishment and and understanding of unnamed millions over thousands of years -- and the beautiful thing is, we're not done refining it yet. I do this because I not only want to be an educated member of society, but a cooperative and productive one at that. Not to toot my own horn here, but that takes an investment of time and effort.

      Folks like you who think you can deconstruct and redefine reality at your whimsy? I hate to be the one to break the news to you here, champ, but you're not the unique snowflake that you think you are. I refer back to your fry cook brethren I mentioned above.

      As for labeling my words as "defamation"? Go right ahead. Hell, dress them up and take them to a tea party in your back yard while you're at it. Call them whatever you want, they won't ring any less true.

      And at no surprise to anyone, when confronted with your own bullshit you set up the court to play the citation game. That's not going to work here, because every single bullshit point that I've refuted to which you demand I cite proof of -- that isn't a strawman, that is -- can be thus proven by pressing the "home" key on your keyboard and starting from the very top. You might even be gifted with the clarity of discovering this pile of bullshit put to words is your very own work. One other thing -- no credible scholar cites Wikipedia. Junior colleges and even high schools discount such an unreliable source.

      Now, before you go crowing victory because you failed to divert me into playing a childish game of "no, U!", I am more than willing to cite accredited texts, journals, and so much more regarding elementary logic. I should warn you, though, that none of them contain the incredibly fluid and convenient notion of "logic" that you've devised for yourself.

      And before you start furiously pounding out your next wall of verbiage, please consider this famous quote: "Brevity is the soul of wit." I can't remember exactly who said that, but I can tell you that it wasn't Ming the Merciless or whoever the hell else you pattern your dialog after.

      Delete
    10. So you still don't have any points of your own that you'd like to share with the class? I see.

      Regarding your first accusation of the strawman fallacy:

      "Furthermore, among the philosophers they admire, Schopenhauer was an anti-semite who became Hitler's favorite philosopher, Emil Cioran supported the Nazi party in his youth, and Lovecraft(shut up, I know he was a writer for the most part) is famous for his racism."

      There is no context in which this statement makes any sense aside from one utilizing an association fallacy. Or maybe it was a little bit of "Just sayin', man, just sayin'. I know that Nazis have nothing to do with people who want to end the reproduction of sentient organisms, but just putting it out there! It has nothing to do with the argument, but I just felt like typing it anyway!"

      Demonstrate how mentioning Hitler in any context is relevant to antinatalism or our communication has become redundant. Sidestep this challenge by proclaiming it a "smokescreen" and I will be taken aback by how something so direct could be construed as such; you need to understand that I'm not arguing against some perfectly organized, unified strain of dissent, but rather, a series of tangentially related assertions, on their own terms, one-by-one. I address each point specifically and keep my critiques isolated from one another.

      How is the above quoted statement not utilizing an association fallacy, and how is it relevant to antinatalism? What does Hitler have to do with me or any other antinatalist? Why is such a disgusting, passive-aggressive, wimpy correlation gracing my computer screen? Explain it directly and honestly.

      In general, please provide reasons for why a statement is fallacious and, preferably, follow up the supporting argument with valid alternatives to the fallacious assertion. I can just as easily answer any existential question with "God did it." When accusing someone of anything, you need to actually provide an explanation.

      Regarding your second accusation of the strawman fallacy:

      This is part of the same line of thought as the above. Why did you separate the two?

      Regarding your third accusation of the strawman fallacy:

      You accused me of being Mr. Spock for throwing the word "logic" around frivolously, then supported your accusation by claiming that I possess no formal, academic understanding of logic. You did this in reply to a post made by me which cited Wikipedia articles on logical fallacies in order to help educate the original posters on why they've committed some pretty big logical errors. You did not, however, explain how the Wikipedia articles contained incorrect information or how my use of them was indicative of a lack of formal understanding of logic, and instead resorted to proclaiming, without any supporting statements, that I've simply misunderstood what the original posters were saying.

      So, which is it? Am I misusing Wikipedia articles, or am I properly using Wikipedia articles to address strawmen that I've erected? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

      Delete
    11. Your elementary and very hip disdain for Wikipedia is highly amusing. Valid criticisms of Wikipedia include the manner in which editors are chosen and the proliferation of rumors and unsubstantiated claims across large, "pop" articles. These criticisms do not apply to very simple articles on formal logical fallacies, and I'm sure that you don't disagree with a single thing in the articles. Are you saying that Wikipedia's definition of an association fallacy is wrong? Are you saying that Wikipedia's definition of ad hominem is wrong? If not, then why are we even mentioning Wikipedia's very obvious fallibility in a discussion about formal logical fallacies?

      You're only doing this to make it sound like one source, which says the exact same thing as the other, is inferior to the other, thereby proving the user's lack of credibility; this, again, is ad hominem. "He used an article from Wikipedia to support his argument. The article contained factual information and all, but it's Wikipedia, for god's sake. Instant fail, lol!" Stop acting like a child.

      Regarding your fourth accusation of the strawman fallacy:

      Please demonstrate why it is impossible to come to understand logic without going to school for it. If you cannot do this, then you have no business formulating an "if-then" statement with an absolute "then" succeeding a declaration involving formal education. Either modify the statement to include more "if"s, or explain how it is impossible to understand logic in the absence of formal training; there are no other options.

      Regarding the tu quoque fallacy:

      This fallacy occurs when one attempts to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a position based on the proponent's inability to consistently stay with the position. I have never accused you of lacking consistency or flip-flopping, so I have no idea what this has to do with anything. I have accused you of failing, yes -- failing to explain yourself at all, not failing to be consistent and non-hypocritical in your explanations.

      Regarding the fallacy of composition:

      Yes, I would be exercising poor inductive reasoning if I were to get your selective hatred for novel-length explanations wrong. This isn't the case, however: The length of my post had nothing to do with its veracity. You could have just as accurately referred to it as a post on a white background, or a post written with commas. You could have added an infinite series of adjectives, but you instead chose to focus on the length of the post; this was clearly done to discredit it. Based on a past history of rotten, red apples, you may come to praise green apples while including the word "red" in your description of a rotten apple which happens to be red, but that doesn't make the redness magically relevant.

      Delete
    12. "That's cute, but you're not the first psuedointellectual to cry out that you refuse everyone else's reality and substitute your own. There's thousands and thousands of you across the entire world manning the fry vats at McDonalds, cursing your shift manager under your breath and how one day you'll show them. You'll show them all."

      Yes, that must be it. People should continue to reproduce on planet Earth because someone who said otherwise works at McDonalds. I can feel the enmity through my screen! Frightening and disappointing indeed.

      I obey authority for practical reasons, but I don't pretend that it's based on the laws of physics in any real way. Keep fighting to keep things as they are, though; you clearly benefit from it more than the vast majority of the world, so it's obviously in your best interest to perpetuate our current situation. I bet that you never have the desire to fight for a cause -- I mean really, literally fight for it. Things are just fine as they are, and anyone who disagrees needs to be assaulted with ad hominems and outcast as the "them" in your horribly cliche "us versus them" mental schema. Congratulations on epitomizing ineffectuality and modern effeteness.

      "Folks like you who think you can deconstruct and redefine reality at your whimsy? I hate to be the one to break the news to you here, champ, but you're not the unique snowflake that you think you are. I refer back to your fry cook brethren I mentioned above."

      Isn't it you who is doing this via your anti-Wikipedia tirade? I am perfectly fine with the current "formal" definitions of logical concepts, I just fail to see how the method used to arrive at understanding those concepts determines the overall quality of a person's argument. It's not that I disagree that formal institutions are adequate for understanding logic, it's that I disagree that this is the only credible method; any other stance on this matter is basically an attempt to assassinate the character of the person making an argument.

      If I've mischaracterized every single one of the points made against mine, then please type up a comment comparing and contrasting my mischaracterization with the real points. What is it that you're arguing for, exactly? You have yet to tell me, instead finding it perfectly acceptable to jerk off with unsupported accusations. I can sit here all day long and yell at you for mischaracterizing my stance, but that doesn't do anyone any good, which is why it's in your best interest to calm down and tweak the mischaracterizations so that they become realistic representations. "Anyone reading what you write will quickly see why I'm right and you're wrong" is an incredibly cheap cop-out.

      Last but not least, to hell with brevity. Only vapid poets adhere to that insipid adage. There is concise, and then there is thorough; both should be striven for, but the latter takes precedence over the former, and is allowed to negate its importance when necessary.

      I am done replying to you unless you can explain your agenda and what your stances on the topics at hand are. If you cannot do this and continue to resort to childishly proclaiming my arguments to be self-evidently illogical, then you are a troll.

      Delete
    13. What does Hitler have to do with me or any other antinatalist? Why is such a disgusting, passive-aggressive, wimpy correlation gracing my computer screen?

      http://nobadmemes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/somethingawful.html?showComment=1345935612858#c9201463729066082149

      Delete
    14. Let’s get one thing perfectly clear here. I’m not here to debate whatever philosophies or theories you hold regarding natalism, antinatalism, the Nazis, or whatever-the-fuck-else. I’m not going to indulge you by sidestepping into your constant “well then answer me this” what-if scenarios and strawmen. I came here to make one simple point to you, and here it is again:

      You are a blowhard who doesn't know what logic is, you don't know what a sound or valid argument is, yet you accuse others of this very same thing. There's my agenda. Got it?

      And in a fine execution of incompetence, you save me the effort by going out of your way to prove my point:

      "Besides, your use of the word "formal" in this context implies that logic must be derived from preapproved institutions, and that, further, logic cannot be gleaned intuitively by empirically observing one's surroundings in the general sense."

      Where you clearly state that the only standard you hold yourself is to your own, like a true intellectual coward you expect the rest of the world to play by the book and even then you know next to nothing about how that’s supposed to be carried out either. You don’t know what a logical fallacy is yet you constantly accuse others of employing them. You accuse others of cognitive dissonance and somehow your head has yet to explode. Again, you make my case for me:

      “I am perfectly fine with the current "formal" definitions of logical concepts, I just fail to see how the method used to arrive at understanding those concepts determines the overall quality of a person's argument.”

      You’re “perfectly fine” with those formal definitions or any other formal definitions because as we’ve seen here, your method of rationalization has become quite adept at nitpicking and glossing over semantics. Also, it’s no surprise that you can’t understand the accepted methods of the field, as you treat logic and the argument like they’re a game of Mornington Crescent or Calvinball. One fine example of this detachment to reality that you have going on is how you have the arrogance to order people on how to go about replying to your bullshit. “If I've mischaracterized every single one of the points made against mine, then please type up a comment comparing and contrasting my mischaracterization with the real points.” QED.

      And going back to my last reply,

      “ I am more than willing to cite accredited texts, journals, and so much more regarding elementary logic. I should warn you, though, that none of them contain the incredibly fluid and convenient notion of "logic" that you've devised for yourself.”

      For someone whose favorite ploy is the citation game, one would think you would have jumped at my offer to bring actual substance to the table here. As for me, I have a pretty good idea as to why you dodged this part of my reply -- your entire repertoire is hyperbole, rhetoric, dodging the issue at hand, and the comical belief that employing a corny vernacular is some sort of commodity in the realm of intelligent discourse.

      Delete
    15. So you're going to cherry-pick a quote out of its context (if that was you) to illustrate how my supposed delusions regarding the Holocaust somehow validate a statement made by someone along the lines of "Antinatalists love Schopenhauer and Schopenhauer was loved by the Nazis, so therefore, antinatalists are Nazis"? Not only does this fail to discredit the accusation of an association fallacy being present, it has absolutely nothing to do with the antinatalist philosophy.

      When it came to his proposed Zeitgeist, Hitler was all about being supreme leader; no one was allowed to defy his deity-like greatness. Everyone knows that, and it would be idiotic of me to state otherwise. However, it is nevertheless true that he "experimented" with his appointed henchmen by giving them enough free reign to basically be cutthroat against one another in order to become the "strongest."

      Certain elements of what eventually became the Holocaust were cooked by people other than Hitler, and his ultimate part in it was to look the other way, so to speak. There was obviously some intent involved, but my only point was that it was poorly executed and not some master plan laid out by an evil genius. I'm stating that Hitler was an incompetent moron. How is that a betrayal of my alleged affiliation with Nazism? Are you kidding me? I will not allow any further slander in that vein, here.

      Delete
    16. Your agenda is to explain to me why I don't know what logic is, yet you refuse to counter my poor logic with good logic by participating in the debates. So you're admitting to being full of hot air, then. Is that real? Are you being serious?

      "I'm not interested in the topic of brain surgery and I know nothing about it, but I just wanted you to know that you're a terrible brain surgeon -- and have a terrible methodology for caring for anyone in any capacity. You accuse me of being the one who doesn't know what he's talking about, yet, like, just look at how bad you are! You're, like, so bad at this!"

      You're failing horribly at your agenda if it really is to demonstrate how I don't know what logic is. It's one thing to state as much, but you still haven't coupled this assertion with follow-up supporting sentences. I didn't "jump" at your offer to cite accredited journals, because I was constructing a reply wherein I was addressing your statements with counter-statements. It was quite obviously implied by my silence that you're more than welcome to cite whatever you want, here; it always has been. That should have been the very first thing that you did when you came to this blog, but here you are, still failing to do so. You seriously better get to it.

      I think I've pretty much explained several times, now, why I have a good grasp on concepts like cognitive dissonance, guilt by association, and false dichotomies. The part where I mention intuiting logic is important and in no way disregarding formal instruction in logic; it was just a way of saying "At one time, there were no institutions, but the human brain is a logic machine, so people like Socrates were allowed to exist long before we had our classroom discussions with arbitrary names assigned to logical fallacies. Appealing to authority in order to discredit someone or look down on them for not being part of the almighty Academia is fallacious."

      Are you still not understanding that what you quoted has nothing to do with the credibility of academia itself, but with the sheer stupidity of someone who flat out ignores a person's arguments only because the person isn't throwing a bunch of unnecessary credentials around? You do not need to take a class on logic in order to know what a red herring is. By proclaiming otherwise, you are poisoning the well and fruitlessly appealing to authority.

      You can try to sever the link between a discussion regarding how logical someone is and a discussion involving logical statements, but they really are related. Considering that you have just admitted to being interested only in stirring up shit and not in discussing anything other than myself, I will delete any further malicious comments if they lack real points regarding one of the ideas promoted by this blog.

      Delete
    17. By the way, while I welcome any citations from accredited journals, let the record show that it is inefficient to have someone else speak for you in that capacity. If you cannot say yourself why I don't know what an ad hominem or a composition fallacy is, then you're in trouble.

      But sure, let's have an accredited journal speak for you while you take a seat for a bit. Let's see how riddled with appeals to authority this is going to get.

      Delete
    18. Oh, and for anyone interested in why this malicious anonymous guy has absolutely nothing going for him other than rhetoric, read the entire first section below:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

      Oops, I'm automatically wrong about this because alphanumeric characters in the URL are arranged in a manner indicating that this comes from people who are always wrong no matter what!

      Delete
    19. "You are a blowhard who doesn't know what logic is"

      This needs supporting sentences.

      Bare assertion fallacy

      "you don't know what a sound or valid argument is"

      This needs supporting sentences.

      Bare assertion fallacy

      "you save me the effort by going out of your way to prove my point:"

      Self-evidence fallacy

      "Where you clearly state that the only standard you hold yourself is to your own,"

      What you quoted does not mention myself or how I came to understand logic.

      "like a true intellectual coward you expect the rest of the world to play by the book and even then you know next to nothing about how that’s supposed to be carried out either."

      This needs supporting sentences.

      Bare assertion fallacy

      "You don’t know what a logical fallacy is"

      This needs supporting sentences.

      Bare assertion fallacy

      "Again, you make my case for me:"

      Self-evidence fallacy

      "your method of rationalization has become quite adept at nitpicking and glossing over semantics."

      This needs supporting sentences.

      Bare assertion fallacy

      "One fine example of this detachment to reality that you have going on is how you have the arrogance to order people on how to go about replying to your bullshit. 'If I've mischaracterized every single one of the points made against mine, then please type up a comment comparing and contrasting my mischaracterization with the real points.' QED."

      Oh man, please forgive me for imploring you to do the default thing during a debate involving strawmen by showing the audience what the real versions of the arguments are. What was I thinking for assuming that that was step one in any debate where accusations of strawmen are being flung around frivolously?

      Delete
    20. "Your agenda is to explain to me why I don't know what logic is, yet you refuse to counter my poor logic with good logic by participating in the debates. "

      Translation: "Why aren't you playing my game by my rules that are stacked in my favor?"

      Because in the real world we go by a set of standards that have to pass the muster of not one, but many representatives of a field. I think I've made this point perfectly clear many times, but as we've seen, you are incapable of digesting a concept that would cause you to question this aggrandized image you've imagined for yourself.

      For instance, your insistence on using Wikipedia as a source. What you call my "elementary" disdain for Wikipedia is better termed as "scholastic" as no accredited institution would allow such a source that can be edited by literally anyone. I mean, really, are you so dense that you can't see that one glaring flaw that discounts it as a whole? Then again, it's painfully obvious that you've never had to submit yourself to any sort of academic discipline. And no, that incredibly flexible and convenient one you've constructed for yourself doesn't count.

      "By the way, while I welcome any citations from accredited journals, let the record show that it is inefficient to have someone else speak for you in that capacity. If you cannot say yourself why I don't know what an ad hominem or a composition fallacy is, then you're in trouble.
      But sure, let's have an accredited journal speak for you while you take a seat for a bit. Let's see how riddled with appeals to authority this is going to get."


      And with yet another stunning example of your intellectual cowardice, this is how you deflect my offer to bring substance to the table -- by clearly stating that you'll "allow" me to bring accreditation into the discussion only so you can shunt it aside as "speaking for me." That's cute. First you tried to ignore my offer, now you're scrambling to discount it. What are you so afraid of? Why are you so desperate to fix the playing field to your favor if you're such an intellect to be reckoned with?

      It's because you know you're wrong, but your predictably fragile ego won't allow you to admit it. You perceive any form of correction as a personal attack. You wouldn't last five fucking seconds in a real academic setting because it would require you to step out of this self-aggrandized fantasy that you've created for yourself.

      As for me, I'm not an authority on logic. I never said I was. What I am is modest enough to know when to defer to the authority on a matter, which you try to label as "others speaking for me." Now, look at what I quoted of yours up there. It's pretty clear that you consider yourself to be such an authority because of the incredibly foolish notion that you "speak for yourself" which again proves the fact that work only from your own set of infinitely flexible standards. How many times do you have to be told that the real world doesn't work that way? Are you going to stay five years old for the rest of your natural life?

      Which brings us right back to the heart of the matter: the only place where your defective ideals and corny verbiage have any merit is in your dim little mind, which is surrounded by defensive mechanisms that are set to go off whenever objectivity rears its mean, scary head. These are the hallmarks of both a hypocrite and an intellectual coward.

      Delete
    21. The only way that this discussion could be stacked in my favor would be if I were to put real restrictions in place that would actually prevent you from typing. It doesn't matter how I "spin" what you say or what I do to make you look bad so long as your original words remain for all to read and interpret for themselves. Given this, I suspect that you have nothing to back up anything that you've said, and were banking on my backing down out of fear of being put in my place by some guy with a degree in logic.

      Since you irrationally believe that Wikipedia's articles on logical fallacies are nonfactual, here are some links:

      Bare assertion fallacy

      Appeal to authority

      I said that I would determine the plausibility of the rationale used to undermine my points regardless of the source of the rationale; if it's you, fine, but if it's a journal, that's also fine, and irrelevant to your inefficiency and status as middle man. I'm not here to force you to argue for yourself; if someone else is better at it, then the logical thing to do is to bring in the links.

      Would it hurt your pride to be "forced" to let someone else speak for you? It sounds like how you look is more important to you than being right. There's nothing wrong with letting someone else speak for you; just don't come into a place screaming at the top of your lungs about how someone is intellectually inferior for not going to your school and then step aside so that someone else can provide the supporting evidence -- especially if the "someone else" never shows. Seriously, it's dishonest to declare yourself the master of logic and then pawn the job off on "sources."

      And in general, where do we draw the line between where sources are absolutely necessary and where they are not? Why cite sources for fallacies but not for just about every other component of your paragraphs? That kind of selectivity indicates a bias toward only those facets of the communication for which you have formal training. Why not cite sources for everything, including the notion that people die sometime after they are born?

      If I'm "trapping" you by pointing out that you're taking the long way around, who cares? That doesn't make you physically incapable of presenting the sources, does it?

      You know, in a corporate environment, I've watched firsthand as people have been fired for repeatedly failing to deliver proof that their credentials are real. It's sort of a big deal when people get all loud over and over again with promises of eventually backing up their voluminous accusations and then embarrass themselves when they fail.

      Delete
    22. "You know, in a corporate environment" Leaving Society confirmed as Objectivist Randian Corporate Nazi Scum.

      Delete
    23. " It doesn't matter how I "spin" what you say or what I do to make you look bad so long as your original words remain for all to read and interpret for themselves."

      What on earth makes you think I'd have a problem with this? Hell, I'm banking on it. You're so detached from reality that you think you can artfully manipulate a debate that you know you've lost from the very beginning. Your audience -- of who I am sure is very limited -- will be able to see how you:

      1. ignored an offer to bring in not one, but several accepted authorities on the subject and when that didn't work,

      2. you made a weak, transparent attempt to avoid the issue altogether by trying to frame it as me getting someone else to speak for me. And you're still begging me to let you off the hook:"Why not cite sources for everything, including the notion that people die sometime after they are born?" No, Leaving Society. I have you backed into a corner and all the weasel words in your repertoire won't let you slip out of this one.

      It's taking its toll on you, because your exacerbated state is starting to show and you're now having to rely on even more childish tactics like putting words in my mouth. "Since you irrationally believe that Wikipedia's articles on logical fallacies are nonfactual," Where did I say this? The only thing I've ever said is Wikipedia doesn't pass the muster as a citable source.

      "Would it hurt your pride to be "forced" to let someone else speak for you?"

      No, but your case it would work wonders for your credibility, which is currently slumming in the negative digits.

      Also, for such a powerful intellect as yours, you have no reading comprehension. You reply "Seriously, it's dishonest to declare yourself the master of logic and then pawn the job off on "sources." to the very fucking post where I stated "As for me, I'm not an authority on logic. I never said I was. What I am is modest enough to know when to defer to the authority on a matter,"

      "If I'm "trapping" you by pointing out that you're taking the long way around, who cares?" Speak up, Leaving Society! I can't hear you from that hole you dug yourself into!

      "You know, in a corporate environment, I've watched firsthand as people have been fired for repeatedly failing to deliver proof that their credentials are real." I hate to tell you this, but your experiences in this corporate environment (you forgot to mention if it was McDonalds or Burger King) haven't taught you a single thing about how the rest of the world operates.

      So is that bag of tricks empty yet?

      Delete
    24. So is that bag of tricks empty yet?

      Yep, I'd say so. 24 hours is plenty of time to allow you a response. Looks like you turned tail and ran from that corner you backed yourself into. It's been a pleasure rubbing your face into the dirt, Leaving Society.

      In the future, you might want to stick to picking arguments with forums full of dullards such as yourself.

      Delete
    25. I stopped replying to this person because of the absurd redundancy that was mounting, but I just noticed something that probably does warrant elucidation:

      You can state that you are not an authority on logic while having previously stated otherwise, or while acting to the contrary. Your being a hypocrite isn't somehow going to trump my statement that you convey the sense of being an authority on logic.

      You obviously have respect for authority, at the very least -- and, beyond that, a belief that communicated authority holds a monopoly on education, a monopoly which you happily participate in and endorse. You have hatched from your larva and are now one with the monopoly. "Buy our corporate lemonade instead of the lemonade from the kid on the corner; it's the 'official' kind!"

      I can murder a hundred people after madly ranting into a camera the day before and then later claim that I never killed anyone or said what I did, but how does the latter statement hold any weight whatsoever? Who cares that you later stated that you're not an authority on logic? Logic isn't a simple game where the variables are limited to isolated sentence fragments.

      Anyway, regardless of your delusions regarding acquisition of proper cognitive tools, I'm not seeing much substance to your comments, so that's that, I suppose. Your use of terms and phrases such as "bag of tricks," "picking arguments," "backed yourself into," "rubbing your face into the dirt," "powerful" (in reference to my intellect), etc. betray your value disorder, your preoccupation with argument as entertainment.

      See ya!

      Delete
    26. By the way, the whole purpose of the SomethingAwful experiment was to see how a community of bigoted knee-jerkers would react upon realizing that they're being "watched." I find it fascinating that a group can "secretly" but publicly discuss a public artifact.

      Delete
  4. IS THIS YOU

    http://i.imgur.com/HKrXd.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your floundering attempts to argue with posts that were never meant as arguments in the first place? Why, yes. It's hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why does it matter what the intent was behind the statements?

      So I want to address the statements by opining on why they're silly. Why is that "hilarious"? If I'm incorrect, either:

      1. Explain why (duh).

      2. Show some compassion like a decent human being and steer me in the proper direction by providing useful links that will make me a better arguer, and thus, in your eyes (apparently), a better person.

      But you don't do either, because this is "hilarious." Anon, are you... are you making fun of me? Oh dear. Someone get this bully out of here immediately!

      Delete
    2. You neither know nor care what you're arguing with, and you don't see why that's funny? Of course you don't.

      Opine all you like dude, nobody's going to stop you.

      Delete
    3. Back up the claim that I don't know what I'm arguing with.

      Make it your next reply or don't reply.

      Delete
    4. You just said you don't care what the intent was. Are you asking me to scroll up for you now so you can read your own comments?

      Delete
    5. You're sidestepping. I'm asking you to back up the claim that I don't know what I'm arguing with, not the claim that I don't care why what I'm arguing with exists.

      Delete
    6. Which was never my argument. Oh no! Strawman! Looks like you automatically lose! My commiserations, bro.

      I'm saying not everything is an attempt to disprove your philosophy (I use the term loosely). But you're so wrapped up in your agenda that you didn't even consider that. Every insult is an ad hominem, every behavioural criticism a strawman or a guilt-by-association fallacy.

      Delete
    7. Considering that the original link barely had anything to do with me and that none of the quotes in the original post applied to me, I don't see how any of that could be true.

      I saw a thread where antinatalists -- none of whom I even know personally -- were getting a bad rap while the philosophy itself was getting strawmanned to hell, so I figured I'd make a post with a provocative title about it. That's all, bro culture participant.

      Delete
  6. Nuh-uh, structural realism undermines naive reductionism and reveals the existence of enduring structures. You'd know this if you read Deepak Chopra instead of Mein Kampf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There has to be a new word for the kind of irony employed when reducing a philosophical standpoint of relatively substantial magnitude and gravity to reductionism.

      Delete
    2. Antinatalism doesn't work because nothing does not noth. Read Eckhart Tolle.

      Delete
  7. I have -- not in the slightest -- been -- not very dearly -- in -- whereever -- a house. Ah! Oh! Uh! How, uh, it -- in terms of function -- matters, I do not -- why yes, no! -- know, but I -- oh! ah! yeeh! -- have not, dearly clearly, stand by it! It?! It! When, uh, where, uh, ah, uh, I will ever work as a -- in the dreamiest of states -- consultant it ain't worth it or dear it, I would smear it. When I, yikes!, have it done so, I will do it. clearly, my reasons -- uh, oh, ah -- are, uh, in terms of function, dear.

    ReplyDelete
  8. would like to share my own views on antinatalism:
    http://himanshusingh37.blogspot.in/2012/10/my-theory-of-life-and-people.html

    ReplyDelete